Trees - Complaints - Laserfiche WebLink

New Search

KILLEIi.TRE Page 1 March 25, 1994 To: Bob Hammitt From: J.R. Medlin Subject: DAMAGE OF STREET TREES ON RIVER ROAD NEAR BELTLINE The office of the Urban Forester received a citizen complaint on March 10, 1994 alleging that approximately 13 street trees on the east side of River Road near the Wendy's Restaurant had been severely damaged through over pruning. An inspection by the Urban Forester confirmed that this was indeed the case. The extent of the over pruning was so severe the Urban Forester felt the trees were sure to decline and die within a matter of 2 -3 years. An investigation found that three different parties representing abutting businesses were responsible. These are: Pacific Continental Bank for 5 trees, Wendy's Restaurant for 5 trees, and Yam Gar Yuen Restaurant for 3 trees. The trees in front of Pacific Continental Bank were trimmed by Brad Nichols of Higher Ground Coffee Company, 2019 River Road. Wendy's Restaurant allegedly had the work performed by their caretaker, while Yam Gar Yuen Restaurant apparently performed the work with their own staff. Since the trees were determined to be damaged beyond the point of recovery, I ordered their immediate removal and replacement with the largest caliber of tree readily available. The logic of this order was to minimize the amount of additional public concern which would be generated by the stark visual appearance of the trees and the implied inaction on the part of the City. The 13 trees were replaced on March 16th & 17th, 1994 with 4" inch caliper Kwanzan Cherry trees. The total cost of the removal and replacement was $263.62 per tree, including stump grinding. A letter is being sent to each of the three businesses asking their payment of the expense of removal and replacement of the trees which they were responsible for damaging. The potential for us collecting is debatable. A conversation with Glenn Klien resulted in the following: 1. It is legally arguable that street trees belong to the abutting property owner and not the City. This is due to it being legally arguable that the parking strip (R /W) iS actually owned by the abutting property owner and the public only has transportation and utility easement rights on this property. (This was an argument made in the (Tosser ?) case where the lady was crippled when a drunken driver ran a stop sign alleged to be blocked by vegetation. Glenn said he could find nothing in the code which says a property owner can't prune a street tree. If anything, the contrary is implied in that the code specifically "allows" the City to enter this area for the purpose of trimming street trees. If we clearly owned the trees we wouldn't need this code authorization.